The high court granted bail to the applicant, convicted of murder and dacoity, on the grounds of parity with a co-accused previously released on bail, distinguishing trial court findings on evidence.
Release on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety and reporting to Malwani Police Station.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/3
Chittewan
tIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.577 OF 2019 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.658 OF 2019
Idris Nathu Khan @ Sanjay … Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr. Prashant G. Pandey for the Applicant. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND SMT. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 4 JUNE 2019
P.C. :
2 The Applicant/original accused No.2 convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge in Session Case No.72 of 2010, vide judgment dated 27 December 2016, with imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302, imprisonment for seven years for offence under Section 394, is seeking bail on the ground of parity.
3 It is pointed out that accused No.2 Mohammed Riyaz Bhikki Khan Mansuri @ Raju @ Chandbabu has been allowed bail by this Court, whilst passing the order on Criminal Application No.1046 of 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2017, on 6 August 2018. Learned Counsel for the
2/3
Chittewan
Applicant states that reasons recorded therein hold good even in case of the present applicant.
4 Learned APP is disputing this. He has invited our attention to the findings recorded by Trial Court on Point Nos.2 to 4, in paragraph-25, to show that the presence of accused on spot and blood group of deceased on their clothes, is already established. According to him, it cannot be said that conviction is ordered only on account of extra judicial confession.
5 We have seen paragraph-25 in the impugned judgment. The observations therein are not in relation to only the present Applicant, but show that though the incident had taken place on 26 November 2009 and arrests have been made in Uttar Pradesh on 30 November 2009, the first medical examination of accused is on 3 December 2009.
6 In the situation, we find that the reasons recorded on 6 August 2018 by this Court, while releasing accused No.1 on bail, also applicable in the present matter. The recoveries are mostly from accused No.1.
7 Therefore, we direct release of the present Applicant on bail on his duly furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
8 The Applicant shall report to Malwani Police Station on first date of every month during the pendency of the present appeal.
3/3
Chittewan
(SMT. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to the applicant on grounds of parity with another accused who was previously released.
Whether the findings of the trial court regarding extra-judicial confession alone justify granting bail on parity.
Whether the reasons recorded for releasing accused No.1 apply to the present applicant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Criminal Application No.1046 of 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2017Referred¶3
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Idris Nathu Khan @ Sanjay
State of Maharashtra
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
SWAPNA JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
